National Republican., 1887-08-18

forfeited the charters Of the Pacific railways,
and is searching for evidence to justify |
such repeal and forfeiture, the answer Is
that the right to repeal lie absolute, IL pro-
vision therefor be in the charters, otherwise
not. II forfeiture Of the charters Is the
object, such forfeiture can be declared only
after judicial investigation before a court,
wherein the cause OF forfeiture must be
first alleged and then proved as alleged.
This commission can have no greater power
than Ia possessed by Congress were in ses-
sion and engaged In the investigation now
being conducted by the commission.
But Congress itself cannot maintain an
inquiry by unconstitutional searches aud
sitzuies of testimony. 1t cannot inspect
ones private papers, nor lmprison citizen
for not making known thkt which the CON
stitution preserves In confidence and se-
crccy. The spectacle Of an arbitrary com
mission, bound by no fixed rules OF proceed
ure, wandering about the country searching
for testimony to forfeit property or blacken
regulations is new and abhorrent. The Su-
preme Court Of the United States in q late
decision marks with illegality such scheme
thus:
Lastly, II Is urged as an argument OF utility
that such q search is means OF detecting
offenders by discovering evidence. I wish
some cases had been shown where the law
forces evidence out OF the owners custody by
process. There is no process against papers In
civil causes. 1t has often been tried, but never
pIevailtd. Nay. where the adversary has by
force or fraud got possession Of your own
proper evidence, there is no way to get II back
but by scton. In the criminal law such
proceeding was never heard Of, and yet there
are some crimes, such. for instance, asmurder,
rsre, robbery, and HOUSEKEEPING, to say moth.
ing OF forgery and perjury, that are more
atroclous than libelng. But our law has pro.
vided no paper search in these cases TO help
forward the conviction. Whether this pro-
ceodcth iiom the gen,lCncss of the law toward
criminals or from consideration that such a
power would be more pernicious to the
innocent than useful to the public, /
will not say. II is very certain
that the law obligeth no man to accue
himself because the necessary means of com
pelling self.accusation, falling upon the inno-
cent ss well as the guilty, would be both cruel
nrd unjust, and 1t would seem that search for
evidence is di'allowed upon the same priuci.
pie; then, too, the innocent would be con.
founded with the guilty.
The principles laid down In this opinion af
feet the very essence OF constitutional liberty
and security. They reach farther than the
concrete form of the case than before the
oouit, with its adventitlous circumstances I:
they apply TO all invaslons on the part cf the
| government and its employees Of the sanctity OF
| a mans home and the privaies OF life. II is
| not the breaking OF his doors and the rumag.
| irg Of his drawers that constitute the essence
| ofthe eflense but II Is the invasion of his in
| defcasible right of personal security, personal
liberty, and private property, where that right
has never been forfeited by his conviction OF
| some public offense-it Is the invasion of this
| sacred right which underlies and constitutes
| the essence of Lord Camden's judgment
| Breaking into house and opening boxes and
| drawers are circumstances of aggravation, but
any forcible and compulsory extortion Of a
| mans own testimony, or Of his private papers
to be used as evidence to convict him OF crime,
or TO forfeit his goods Is within the condcmna-
ton Of that judgment. In this regard the
fourth and fifth amendments run almost into
each other.
II the opinion OF the Supreme Court OF
the United States is entitled to respect-and
we trust the time will never arrive when 1t
is not-then 1t must be evident to all fair.
minded men that Senator Stanford is fight
ing the battle Of constitutional right and
personal liberty, In the right construction
OF which the humblest citizen is as deeply
interested as is Senator Stanford.